I've got to agree. Religion is great, but it should never be enforced by secular law even as a modular system.There is actually a story behind this headline, and it is not particularly about Muslim Shari'a but about informed consent.
The arbitration panels are, as noted, not different than other special interest panels. However, it is extremely difficult to ensure that all participants - especially the women - are making the decision to allow jurisdiction freely. It is undeniable that Muslim traditionalists see women as subservient to men and it would be quite hard for a woman to refuse the arbitration of the Shari'a based panel without a very serious impact on her community and family life. It is also undeniable that many Muslim women respect Shari'a as a model for their conduct.
The hard part is differentiating between the two and the spectrum in between. Just expressing consent for arbitration is not enough.
My view is that no religious communities should have any extra privileges in the justice system. This includes removing bishops from the Lords, blasphemy laws and disestablishing the Church of England. All the Abrahamic religions discriminate against women in some manner, and none of them have a place in modern legal practice at any level whatsoever.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-Eric "George Orwell" Blair
"If the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
(Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, 1861).
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Bookmarks